[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 16214-16215]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITON ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2001

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to HR 
2505, The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001.
  As I have already stated, I believe that cloning is a fascinating, 
promising issue but one that remains to be more fully explored. As has 
been evidenced by the prior hearings and debate on this issue, the 
knowledge of the scientific community in this field is still in its 
infancy, particularly in the field of stem cell research. It is crucial 
that Congress carefully consider all options regarding this issue 
before it proceeds, particularly before we undertake to criminalize 
aspects of this practice. We must carefully balance society's need for 
lifesaving scientific research against the numerous moral, ethical, 
social and scientific issues that this issue raises. Yet what we face 
here today is a bill that threatens to stop this valuable research, in 
the face of evidence that we should permit this research to continue.
  The legal, ethical, physical and psychological implications of such 
an act are not yet fully understood. It is generally accepted that the 
majority of Americans is not yet comfortable with the production of a 
fully replicated human, or ``clone.'' There is little argument that the 
existence of these unresolved issues is good reason to refrain from 
this activity at this time. We do not yet know the long-term health 
risks for a cloned human being, nor have we even determined what the 
rights of a clone would be as against the person who is cloned or how 
either would develop emotionally.
  Those of us who believe in the Greenwood-Deutsch-Schiff-DeGette 
substitute are not proposing and are not proponents of human cloning. 
What we are proponents of is the Bush Administration's NIH report June 
2001 entitled ``Stem Cells: Scientific Progress and Future Research 
Directions.'' This report, as I will discuss further, acknowledges the 
importance of therapeutic cloning.
  None of us want to ensure that human beings come out of the 
laboratory. In fact, I am very delighted to note that language in the 
legislation that I am supporting, the Greenwood-Deutsch-Schiff-Degette 
legislation, specifically says that it is unlawful to use or attempt to 
use human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology or the product of 
such technology to initiate a pregnancy to create a human being. But 
what we can do is save lives.
  For the many people come into my office who are suffering from 
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, neurological paralysis, diabetes, 
stroke, Lou Gehrig's disease, and cancer, or infertility the Weldon 
bill questions whether thaf science can continue. I believe it is 
important to support the substitute, and I would ask my colleagues to 
do so.
  What we can and must accept as a useful and necessary practice is the 
use of the cloning technique to conduct embryonic stem cell research. 
This work shows promise in the effort to treat and even cure many 
devastating diseases and injuries, such as sickle cell anemia, spinal 
cord damage and Parkinson's disease through valuable stem cell 
research. This research also brings great hope to those who now 
languish for years or die waiting for a donor organ or tissue. Yet just 
as we are seeing the value of such research, H.R. 2505 would seek not 
only to stop this research, but also to criminalize it. Yet just as we 
are seeing the value of such research, H.R. 2505 would seek not only to 
stop this research, but also to criminalize it. We must pause for a 
moment to consider what conduct should be criminalized.
  Those who support the Human Cloning Prohibition Act contend that it 
will have no negative impact on the field of stem cell research. 
However, the findings of the report that the National Institutes of 
Health released in June 2001 are to the contrary. This report states 
that only clonally derived embryonic stem cells truly hold the promise 
of generating replacement cells and tissues to treat and cure many 
devastating diseases. It is ironic at the same time that while the 
Weldon bill has been making its way through the House, the 
Administration's NIH is declaring that that the very research that the 
bill seeks to prohibit is of significant value to all of us.
  An embryonic stem cell is derived from a group of cells called the 
inner cell mass, which is part of the early embryo called the 
blastocyst. Once removed from the blastocyst, the cells of the inner 
cell mass can be cultured into embryonic stem cells; this is known as 
somatic cell nuclear transfer. It is important to note that these cells 
are not themselves embryos. Evidence indicates that these cells do not 
behave in the laboratory as they would in the developing embryo.
  The understanding of how pluripotent stem cells work has advanced 
dramatically just since 1998, when a scientist at the University of 
Wisconsin isolated stem cells from human embryos. Although some 
progress has been made in adult stem cell research, at this point there 
is no isolated population of adult stem cells that is capable of 
forming all the kinds of cells of the body. Adult stem cells are rare, 
difficult to identify, isolate and purify and do not replicate 
indefinitely in culture.
  Conversely, pluripotent stem cells have the ability to develop into 
all the cells of the body. The only known sources of human pluripotent 
stem cells are those isolated and cultured from early human embryos and 
from certain fetal tissue. There is no evidence that adult stem cells 
are pluripotent.

[[Page 16215]]

  Further, human pluripotent stem cells from embryos are by their 
nature clonally derived--that is, generated by the division of a single 
cell and genetically identical to that cell. Clonality is important for 
researchers for several reasons. To fully understand and harness the 
ability of stem cells to generate replacement cells and tissues, the 
each identity of those cells' genetic capabilities and functional 
qualities must be known. Very few studies show that adult stem cells 
have these properties. Hence, now that we are on the cusp of even 
greater discoveries, we should not take an action that will cut off 
these valuable scientific developments that are giving new hope to 
millions of Americans. For example, it may be possible to treat many 
diseases, such as diabetes and Parkinson's, by transplanting human 
embryonic cells. To avoid immunological rejection of these cells ``it 
has been suggested that . . . [a successful transplant] could be 
accomplished by using somatic cell nuclear transfer technology (so 
called therapeutic cloning) . . .'' according to the NIH.
  Hence, although I applaud the intent of H.R. 2505, I have serious 
concerns about it. H.R. 2505 would impose criminal penalties not only 
on those who attempt to clone for reproductive purposes, but also on 
those who engage in research cloning, such as stem cell and infertility 
research, to expand the boundaries of useful scientific knowledge. 
These penalties would extend to those who ship or receive a product of 
human cloning. And these penalties are severe--imprisonment of up to 
ten years and a civil penalty of up to one million dollars, not to 
exceed more than two times the gross pecuniary gain of the violator. 
Many questions remain unanswered about stem cell research, and we must 
pen-nit the inquiry to continue so that these answers can be found. In 
addition to research into treatments and cures for life threatening 
diseases, I am also particularly concerned about the possible effect on 
the treatment and prevention of infertility and research into new 
contraceptive technologies. We must not criminalize these inquiries.
  H.R. 2505 would make permanent the moratorium on human cloning that 
the National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended to President 
Clinton in 1997 in order to allow for more time to study the issue. 
Those who support the bill state that we must do so because we do not 
fully understand the ramifications of cloning and that allowing even 
cloning for embryonic stem cell research creates a slippery slope into 
reproductive cloning. I maintain that we must study what we do not 
know, not prohibit it. The very fact that there was disagreement among 
the witnesses who spoke before us in Judiciary Committee indicates that 
there is substantial need for further inquiry. We would not know 
progress if we were to criminalize every step that yielded some 
possible negative results along with the positive.
  There are many legal uncertainties inherent in prohibiting cloning. 
First, we face the argument that reproductive cloning may be 
constitutionally protected by the right to privacy. We Roe v. Wade when 
we legislatively protect embryos. We do not recognize embryos as full-
fledged human beings with separate legal rights, and we should not seek 
to do so.
  Instead, I again urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood-Deutsch-
Schiff-Degette, a reasonable alternative to H.R. 2505. This legislation 
includes a ten year moratorium on cloning intended to create a human 
life, instead of permanently banning it. As I previously noted, it 
specifically prohibits human cloning or its products for the purposes 
of initiating or intending to initiate a pregnancy. It imposes the same 
penalties on this human cloning as does H.R. 2505. Thus, it addressees 
the concern of some that permitting scientific/research cloning would 
lead to permitting that permitting the creation of cloned humans.
  More importantly, the Greenwood-Deutsch-Schiff-Degette substitute 
will still permit valuable scientific research to continue, including 
embryonic stem cell research, which I have already discussed. This 
substitute would explicitly permit life giving fertility treatments to 
continue. As I have stated, for the millions of Americans struggling 
with infertility, protection of access to fertility treatments is 
crucial. Infertility is a crucial area of medicine in which we are 
developing cutting edge techniques that help those who cannot conceive 
on their own. It would be irresponsible to cut short these procedures 
by legislation that mistakenly treats them as the equivalent of 
reproductive cloning. For example, there is a fertility technique known 
as ooplasmic transfer that could be considered to be illegal cloning 
under H.R. 2505's broad definition of ``human cloning.'' This technique 
involves the transfer of material that may contain mitochondrial DNA 
from a donor egg to another fertilized egg. This technique has 
successfully helped more than thirty infertile couples conceive healthy 
children. It may also come as no surprise that in vitro fertilization 
research has been a leading field for other valuable stem cell 
research.
  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advise that ten 
percent of couples in this country, or 6.1 million couples, experience 
infertility at any given time. It affects men and women with almost 
equal frequency. In 1998, the last year for which data is available,, 
there were 80,000 recorded in vitro fertilization attempts, out of 
which 28,500 babies were born. This technique is a method by which a 
man's sperm and the woman's egg are combined in a laboratory dish, 
where fertilization occurs. The resulting embryo is then transferred to 
the uterus to develop naturally. Thousands of other children were 
conceived and born as a result of what are now considered lower 
technology procedures, such as intrauterine insemination. Recent 
improvements in scientific advancement make pregnancy possible in more 
than half of the couples pursuing treatments.
  The language in my amendment made it explicitly clear that embryonic 
stem cell research and medical treatments will not be banned or 
restricted, even if both human and research cloning are.
  The organizations that respectively represent the infertile and their 
doctors, the American Infertility Association and the American Society 
for Reproductive Medicine, support this amendment. For the millions of 
Americans struggling with infertility, this provision is very 
important. Infertility is a crucial area of medicine in which we are 
developing cutting edge techniques that help those who cannot conceive 
on their own. It is would be irresponsible to cut short these 
procedures by legislation that mistakenly addresses these treatments as 
the equivalent of reproductive cloning.
  The proponents of H.R. 2505 argue that their bill will not prohibit 
these procedures. However, access to infertility treatments is so 
critical and fundamental to millions that we should make sure that it 
is explicitly protected here. We must not stifle the research and 
treatment by placing doctors and scientists in fear that they will 
violate criminal law. To do so would deny infertile couples access to 
these important treatments.
  Whatever action we take, we must be careful that out of fear of 
remote consequences we do not chill valuable scientific research, such 
as that for the treatment and prevention of infertility or research 
into new contraceptive technologies. The essential advances we have 
made in this century and prior ones have been based on the principles 
of inquiry and experiment. We must tread lightly lest we risk trampling 
this spirit. Consider the example of Galileo, who was exiled for 
advocating the theory that the Earth rotated around the Sun. It is not 
an easy balance to simultaneously promote careful scientific 
advancement while also protecting ourselves from what is dangerous, but 
we must strive to do so. Lives depend on it.
  Mr. Speaker, we must think carefully before we vote on this 
legislation, which will have far reaching implications on scientific 
and medical advancement and set the tone for congressional oversight of 
the scientific community.

                          ____________________